In Hot Pursuit of Scorching Fun

The second installment of the Maze Runner franchise that not all is lost, even during the Apocalypse 

ON CONTINUITY

ARTH VADER (AV): Faster than I would have thought, we got ourselves another Scorch Trials installment. I was surprised to have enjoyed the first film so much but I quickly forgot all about the campy ‘kids save the world’ story so when this one came out in the summer of 2015, I was like “huh–already?” The film comes hot on the heels of the first Maze Runner and as the first one was surprisingly good, my concern was simply; can the second one maintain form? Not a tall order but I had my doubts. How about you, Ponty? 

THE PONTIFICATOR (TP): This film picks up where the last one left off…and like the last one, diverges greatly from the original book it was based on. This was to be expected though since the film adaption of the entire story left the books with the first installment... and will likely continue to the end of the trilogy. At least this film lines up with the first and in that, there is perfect continuity.

CASTING, DIRECTING AND ACTING

AV: Scorch Trials brings back an impressively talented cast of young Maze Runners, as Director Wes Ball expands his world of the and brings us new and compelling details of world that’s no longer ours but has become something else entirely. Let’s face it, Ponty, the acting is no great shakes anywhere in this flick but I don’t know if that’s the fault of the actors. The screenplay tries to involve the viewer and doesn’t fail, while not making a whole lot of linear sense. Still, the story is embraceable and we get so much more out of Scorch Trials than I would have thought, wouldn’t you say sir? 

TP: I wasn’t taken with any of the returning original cast Vader, even though they played their roles adequately (just barley so in some cases), I was more intrigued with the new additions to the cast. Jacob Lofland was particularly interesting in his role as Aris with his quiet demeanor and willingness to get involved. Although I like Aiden Gillen, he seemed to come off as just an alternate version of “Little Finger” (his Game of Thrones role)… worming his way to the WY.K.D throne. Giancarlo Esposito was a surprise and added some spice to the cast with his role as wheeler and dealer, but ultimately a concerned parent looking for a better life. Lastly was the unexpected appearance of Barry Pepper. Although he didn’t have a huge role, I haven’t seen him in awhile and it was good to see him return to the silver screen.

SPECIAL EFFECTS

AV: It was hard not to to be impressed by this film’s visual effects. Massive CGI city environments-like the rolling electrical storms and crazy weather, as well as fantastic landscapes and of course (Spoilers!), Zombies. I gotta’ admit my friend, I did NOT see that one coming! Sure I might have if I read the books, but hey, c’mon what is this a library? 

The addition of Zombies, even different types of them, was kind of low hanging fruit from a story-teller’s standpoint but I loved it all the same. Really! Seeing brainless undead hordes chase our Maze-running heroes out of a blasted out skyscraper submerged in sand is one of the most compelling single moments of 2015 effects cinema.

TP: There was no new ground broken, but the effects were still well done and moved the story along for what it was…a giant chase film. With that, there isn’t much that need be done except having stuff pop out at various times coupled with camera play to distort the senses. It works well for what it was intended to do.

A CLOSER LOOK

AV: Okay, so in the review of the first installment of the Maze Running chronicles, I was left with a number of questions like, why are they there, and who put them there and why are they being watched. Sadly, I’m not sure I have those answers. Yes, I am aware the organization that set up the whole Maze observation dynamic was revealed but, why would ANYONE dedicate such large-scale technological, human, and logistical resources to such experiments? It make no sense to me. But I guess some things just have to hold our suspended belief. It’s my least favorite storytelling component to these movies. What did you think?

TP: Where do I start Vader? Perhaps I’ll start with the lunacy that in the middle of a chase, or while still being in peril, is somehow the perfect opportunity to stop and demand a detailed explanation for why you are running for your life. No? How about splitting up in dangerous and unfamiliar territory that is no doubt riddled with danger? If that wasn’t bad enough, how about leaving a perfectly functioning gun behind so one of your party can commit suicide? Uh... throwing away an empty canteen, so in the off chance you actually do come across more water in the desert, you have no place to store it? What about setting your place to blow up because you are under attack by hostile forces, and you only take ONE of the six or seven guns you have, and leave the rest. Oh… my personal favorite is coming to a fork in the road and deciding to explore the scary creepy looking tendrils on the wall and follow them back to a place of horror… and continue to explore! These are just some of the idiocy and lunacy that simply killed this film for me.

ON SEQUELS

AV: This film left the audience in a bit of a cliff-hanger so we are more than likely going to get another installment. I am quite interested in seeing how the story raps up in the next chapter. The culmination of robotic monsters (from the first film) and ravenous, black-blooded Zombies in film two makes me anxious to see if those two (adversaries) go to war or if there is a third terror unleashed on our heroes Runners as they head back for the final showdown.

TP: There is going to be a third film. In fact I have heard that the last film might even be split into two films ala “Hunger Games.” All I can say is if it is more of the same, I will probably be just as annoyed watching it as I was watching this film. 

RATE IT!

ARTH VADER Rates Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials: With a great–if not predictable–final battle wrought with tears, feel-good heroics and some good, old-fashioned Hollywood explosions and gun play, you’ll enjoy Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials. I dare say even better than the first, this film does a solid job of engaging the audience and I need to re-iterate, for any Zombie-lovers out there, this film has got the goods. Well-paced, loaded with good-looking CGI and a story that’s good enough to move things along, I’d line up seven (7) Busted Blocks and drop them into a monster-laden, zombie-infested wasteland and watch the good time roll.

THE PONTIFICATOR rates Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials:  Maybe it’s hubris when I say that I think I’m just too intelligent for this film, but when nearly every scene has me scratching my head wondering what the heck the characters are thinking when they do some of the dumb stuff they do…I have to wonder if people actually wrote this film or was it a room full of chimpanzees as part of some vile experiment. This film seems to have gotten lost in its own maze of idiocy and could only manage to find five (5) busted blocks

Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials: 6 / 10 Busted Blocks

Tomorrowland: A Real Travesty

George Clooney leads audiences on a lackluster trip to a dismal future in Disney’s Tomorrowland.

ON CONTINUITY

ARTH VADER (AV): Inspired by the famed Disneyland ride/attraction of the same name, Tomorrowland focuses on a dream–inspired future-topia where people are whisked away, to enjoy all the comforts of a technological paradise where they even get to fly around on personal jet packs. While many of those concepts are derived from the Disney themed ride, the movie attempts to foreshadow a pretty terrific future wouldn't you say Pontificator? 

THE PONTIFICATOR (TP): Dunno about that Vader. Seemingly an original story wherein a boy-genius all grown up and a scientifically savvy youth must team up to solve the mystery of Tomorrowland, and save the world. Original…except for the recurring theme of the world being saved (once again) by a gifted child (sigh).

CASTING, ACTING AND DIRECTING

AV: George “Gravity” Clooney heads up a pretty ho-hum cast that includes Hugh “House” Laurie and well. honestly it doesn’t matter. Sure, the cast was fine. But ex-Power Ranger Britt Robinson spends so time screaming at 'things that shouldn't be', her character quickly became annoying. The grizzled Clooney is a bit too young to pull off the grumpy old professor thing as he attempts to mentor a gifted young girl through her mundane life. The direction by famed family film director, Brad Bird (The Incredibles, Up, Ratatouille) was competent but also transparent. Pontificator, the acting was near appalling but I did manage to sit all the way through it and trust me, that was no easy task.

TP: I thought the cast was great and the actors presented their characters marvelously…for their target audience. I’m not a huge George Clooney fan, but he didn’t detract from the film. Britt Robertson didn’t get annoying for me and I enjoyed her scenes with Raffey Cassidy. Hugh Laurie made an interesting villain although it’s just hard to see him and not think “House.” The film moved along at a steady pace which helped it since the story was just “meh.” 

ON SPECIAL EFFECTS

AV: The visual effects were ok. While breaking no new ground, the effects attempted to do more than they should have. A time-stopping freeze gun is a great idea that is used in a toy store and then never heard from again. A rocket ship hidden within the Eiffel Tower is a great idea, until you attempt to execute it. Then, it’s just a dumb, forgettable visual dud. The rocket jet packs had a moment but once you’ve seen the Rocketeer (1991) you’ve seen what you needed to see from that particular piece of technology. P-Man?

TP: Seeing this film in IMAX 3D was a great decision. Disney is certainly dependable when it comes to special effects and this film did not disappoint. In fact, the effects were another high point that helped it along and kept it interesting.

TAKING A CLOSER LOOK

AV: Why on Earth this film was ever green-lighted is far beyond this mere mortal. Things happen that aren't explained, like the distribution and use of special pins that are the key to Tomorrowland are introduced but aren't explained. So you get one that's rare and then you go places. Huh? 

And while there are tons of sci-fi nods to Star Wars, The Day The Earth Stood Still (the classic one) and a host of others–these props do little more than complicate an already confusing string of events. A pedestrian screenplay, lack-luster cast, downright mediocre script and characters too dull to even mention (Tim McGraw, I’m looking at you m’man) I found that the most redeeming quality of this film was the end-credit graphics. Fun and engaging, they are everything the movie is not.

TP: Well…I could get really deep here with all the subliminal nuggets and real world foreshadowing, but instead let me just say that the commentary given in this film about the state of the best humanity has to offer is a message no child should be subjected to. I think it’s disturbing given the message Disney just sent with Avengers: Age of Ultron (remember Ultron was on the internet for five minutes and decided humanity had to go the way of the Dodo). In this film the commentary continues as to why Ultron would think that as the best minds of humanity have managed to screw up “paradise” and in so doing, doomed the planet whom they view as in need of destruction anyway! It all works out in the end, but that doesn’t change everything we had to go through to get there. 

ON SEQUELS

AV: No reason for that. 

TP:They could… but probably shouldn’t. This film was fine for what it was, but should stay in “yesterday” and avoid “tomorrow.”

RATE IT!

ARTH VADER rates Tomorrowland: Swing and a miss, Disney. If you’re looking for a way to siphon 90 minutes from your life that you’ll never get back, then Tomorrowland is for you. This movie tries to matter–it really does, but in the end… it just doesn't. A huge disappointment despite the reported size of Clooney’s payday. I was barely able to strap on two (2) Busted Blocks as jet engines to jettison the sleep-inducing snooze-fest called Tomorrowland into the heavens, never to be seen or heard from again. 

THE PONTIFICATOR rates Tomorrowland:  Good performances (for the target audience) and great special effects made this a very enjoyable film to watch. The lackluster story though, prevented this film from being better than it was. In the end, this movie traveled into tomorrow and only returned to today with six (6) busted blocks.

Tomorrowland – 4 Busted Blocks

This Almanac Is Hard To Read

Time travel—and a boring screenplay–have their consequences in the painfully amateurish Project Almanac. 

ON CONTINUITY

ARTH VADER (AV): An original screenplay that–at least on paper—showcases the ‘what if’ prospect of time travel at the hands of some pretty smart teens. The movie did a decent job of considering not just the complications of time travel but the consequences and even implications of temporal displacement. Time travel is a huge favorite topic in sci-fi to be sure but is rarely handled well. Project Almanac has an interesting take on the topic and enters the realm of asking ’what are the consequences?’ Time travel could have massive repercussions in the lives of ourselves and our world. 

THE PONTIFICATOR (TP): Well… time travel is certainly not a new subject for science fiction films, so to do a really good one you have to do something different (hard to do) or have a really great story (also hard to do). Project Almanac attempts to do both, but doesn’t attain the success it was striving for… although it doesn’t completely flop either.

CASTING, ACTING & DIRECTING

AV: With a cast of relative acting newcomers, Project Almanac is filled with a bunch of beautiful, fresh-faced white kids. The acting was mediocre at best–thats for sure, but the camera work was particularly atrocious as the entire film was shot in that ‘Cloverfield-esque’ handy-cam stye. While it may have helped the film’s authenticity, Ponty, I did not love it. In truth there wasn’t much to love. It did fit (somewhat) with the film’s messaging and storytelling style but those weren’t great, either. Thoughts? 

TP: Well Vader, using a relatively unknown cast (for me anyway) was a good move and probably economically viable. I really got into the characters and applaud the acting of these kids to draw me into the story. Jonny Weston was believable and carried the story well. Sofia Black-D’Elia played her role well enough, but ultimately was  just very pleasing to look at and added the right element to be a catalyst for the poor decision making of Weston’s character.

SPECIAL EFFECTS

AV: Any second-semester computer graphics student at Full-Sail University can generate lightening effects and swirling leaves. Nothing knocked my socks off in the effects realm in Project Almanac. The film’s visual effects weren’t terrible, just mundane. P-Man? 

TP: The “camcorder” effect of the film, although not original, was done well and added to the tension of the action. There was not any new ground broken here and the effects were done well enough not to bomb, but at the end of the day, a film like this has to be driven by the story, not the effects. That said, the effects need to compliment the story and I think that was done here.

TAKING A CLOSER LOOK

AV: I think I am getting to the point in my movie-going journey that trailers are becoming an easy way to decipher a film’s quality or experience. I rolled my eyes like pizza dough when I first watched this film’s trailer. The movie’s choppy, particularly uninteresting storytelling style didn’t help. While all the ‘kids’ were portraying their respective roles to their best capacity, I couldn’t help but keep looking at my watch wondering when this all would start wrapping up. As early as 20 minutes in! The film offered an interesting take on Time Travel but not 106 minutes worth of interesting. (sigh). So Pontificator, how’d you really feel about Project Almanac? 

TP: Time travel has been done in almost every way possible Vader, so I wasn’t looking for some new and unheard of take on the subject (although that would have been wonderful!) I was looking for a bit more consistency though. I could write an entirely separate review on all the gaping plot holes this film left open…all due to nobody taking a serious look into the effects and consequences of time travel, specifically the alteration of the timeline. It’s not an exact science (I don’t think it’s science at all really), but at least sell something that makes sense. It would not have hurt to have gone over the script meticulously and closed the holes before filming began…  just saying.

ON SEQUELS

AV: This film had little story to tell and while the ending was compelling, I don’t EVER need to see anymore of this tom-foolery. 

TP: The film left itself wide open to continue the story…but with all the plot holes in this one, it might be a good idea not to add fuel to the fire, and leave any future thoughts of a sequel rest in the imaginations of the audience. 

RATE IT!

ARTH VADER rates Project Almanac: Lacking the polish and storytelling finesse of most Hollywood flicks, this movie is significantly under-imagined, especially for an original property. No viable plot, vapid, empty-headed characters and cinematography that is almost painful to watch, Project Almanac gives me very little to talk about positively, so I won’t. Suffice it to say, Project Almanac is a film that offers a great idea, but no points for grit, style or story integrity. It’s best to put away your Dad’s schematics and head back to class with no more than two (2) busted blocks. 

THE PONTIFICATOR rates Project Almanac: Although the subject of time travel has been done... time and time again (I couldn’t resist), this film was still interesting from the point of view of wondering how the characters would untangle themselves from the massive mess time traveling teenagers create. Using the camcorder effect added some punch, but in the end, this film could only travel back far enough to displace five (5) busted blocks.

Project Almanac – 3.5 / 10 Busted Blocks

Steel Vision

Krypton's favorite son comes of age in the Superman movie we've all been waiting for in Warner Brother's Man Of Steel

ON CONTINUITY

ARTH VADER (AV): Finally! the summer blockbuster the world has been anticipating has arrived on earth! Opening to solid (if not somewhat mixed) reviews, Chris Nolan and Zack Snyder's Man Of Steel opened on June 14 and helped us all get a glimpse of what a 'real' Superman movie could do. Following the hugely under-performing (but NOT awful) Superman Returns (2006) starring Brandon Roth, this Superman is a lot less ridiculous and lot more dark and gritty. Not since Christopher Reeves Superman (1978) and Superman II (1980) have we had a thoroughly entertaining Kal-El story. I for one was excited when I entered the theater. What was your take old friend?

THE PONTIFICATOR (TP): This film only roughly follows any storyline that I’ve ever seen in any comic book. When I say rough, I mean really rough. The element of Zod trying to take control of Krypton, being defeated and imprisoned in the Phantom Zone...and later released from it to travel to Earth are still present. Everything else in the film, apart from Kal-El being raised by Ma and Pa Kent, is liberal embellishment made to entertain us...and succeeding in super fashion!

CASTING, DIRECTING AND ACTING

AV: To be fair, there were some casting blunders in this film, namely the casting of Laurence Fishburne as Perry White and Amy Adams as Lois Lane. While neither felt like those characters to me, both were decent performances. The true miscast of this movie was Diane Lane as Martha Kent, she just didn't feel right in that role...BUT none of these hurts the overall experience of Man Of Steel. In fact my favorite cast member was Russell Crowe (Jor-El). While I thought Henry Cavill was stunning, Crowe's performance stole the show. The other directing points was the jump-around story sequencing, which was an interesting takes but many times borderline confusing to follow. Pontificator? 

TP: The casting of this film is superb Vader. Henry Cavill has carved out his own brand of Superman. Michael Shannon had me actually sympathizing with General Zod. Russell Crowe has resurfaced his talent. Antje Traue was menacing while sizzling up the screen. Christopher Meloni played up the hard edged Colonel role convincingly. Kevin Costner has finally emerged from obscurity as one of the best versions of Jonathan Kent. Round all that out with Laurence Fishburne... and this movie boasted some serious performing substance. The direction of the film had a calculated momentum and I found the flashbacks to be well timed and relevant to character development. The only detraction for me was the choice of Lois Lane. At the very least they could have at least dyed her hair black if they weren’t going to use someone more suitable for the role.

SPECIAL EFFECTS

AV: Ponty, I have made a decision, I want to move to Krypton! Well, pre-planet-exploding Krypton more specifically. The first (roughly) 30 minutes of this movie take place on Superman's home world, pre-final disaster. Those effects shots were some of the most stunning imagery in the film (or in any recent film) and took my breath away. This was the jump start to many breathtaking effects shots, most notably, the final fight sequence. At more than 30 minutes, the final showdown between General Zod and his rebel Kryptonian cronies is almost physically breathtaking. Watching entire city blocks get pulverized and seeing whole skyscrapers tumble under the onslaught of the Kryptonian Gods among us, was waaayy worth the price of admission. Ponty, did you survive?

TP: Outstanding Vader... I live! Take away Superman, and you still have a spectacular science fiction film complete with all the special effects trimmings. Once again I treated myself to IMAX 3D, and loved every minute of it. The CGI is flawless as space ships race across the screen and buildings tumble like a bad Jenga move. The world of Krypton was well done, conveying a decadent advanced technological society, sufficiently alien even though the inhabitants sparked familiarity. The Kryptonian powers were done brilliantly from the simplest displays of flight to the riveting sequences of super speed. Overall, and epic display of SFX.

TAKING A DEEPER LOOK

AV: Well, Pontifcator, I must say that, while not a perfect film, Man Of Steel does not disappoint. This tale shares a darker, grittier, more conflicted Superman. One who is unsure of whether to lead, follow or get out of the way. He is on an adopted home world but–films end–is the harbinger of the entire DNA of Krypotn's dead race. This adds an incredible burden to Superman's very existence and adds a level of tension and turmoil not ever before seen in a Superman cinematic or televised story line. While I could argue this movie is far from a precursor to the greatness of Nolan Dark Knight trilogy or a rumored Justice League starter point, Man Of Steel is a strong franchise reboot. 

TP: I admit that I saw this film twice already...and will probably see it a third time, so please forgive my indulgence here. The humor was sparse and I think adding more of it to the film would have taken away from the overall seriousness that gave it so much (dare I say) gravity. The flashback sequences were an excellent way to show us why Kal-El struggled with the issue of trust when faced with the choice between his people and the people of Earth. A lifetime of human cruelty will have you doing a lot of soul searching when you’re a resident alien. On that same issue of trust, one of the films most dramatic and touching scenes comes from Clark having implicit trust in his adoptive father... to the point of letting him die when it was within his power to save him. Unlike past stories where Clark must grapple with the limitations of his powers because of his inability to save his father (i.e. heart attack), here he must grapple with the limitations of his all too human spirit... living with the agony of a choice made from profound trust in a person he loved and admired. I believe all this is what gave him the strength to make another tough choice at the end of the film.

Labeling General Zod as a “villain” really wasn’t accurate until the end of the film. Although his methods were extreme in the service of his goal, the irony of it all is that he was the exact opposite of Superman, being devoid of any real ability to make a choice that ran counter to what he was specifically genetically engineered to do. A tornado isn’t a villain, it is an act of nature. Zod was also a natural occurrence, of his societal ecosystem, and this made him far more dangerous than some petty villain.

ON SEQUELS

AV: Oh, I am quite sure this movie will enjoy stellar box office success and become the lynch-pin for at least a strong trilogy of films to come. To this effect, one of the last scenes had a meager-looking Clark Kent show up in the Daily Planet's newsroom but Lois (Amy Adams) knows its him and plays along beautifully. This dispels the unbelievable notion and frustrating myth that Superman can simply put on a pair of horn-rimmed specs and 'blend in.' A master stroke of genius from the film's brain trust.

TP: The word is that this is the first of a trilogy, and I’m very excited to see where they go from here. With the bar set so high, I’m hoping they didn’t take us to the apex only to steadily decline over the next two films. That said, I’m giddy with excitement at the thought of this film being the least of the three... because that means the next two films will be a step beyond epic.

RATE IT!

ARTH VADER rates Man of Steel: Not without a few continuity and casting holes, most of which are not even worth calling out, Man Of Steel brings a steady dose of ass-kicking, hi-octane, white knuckled action and blasts it at you faster than a speeding bullet. A worthy installment in the Superman franchise and a heck of a re-boot, Man of Steel easily leaps nine (9) busted blocks in a single bound. 

THE PONTIFICATOR rates Man of Steel: I knew way back in our year end post two years ago that this film was going to be something special...  I just didn’t know how special. After all the years of presenting Superman in a way that didn’t quite fit with the rest of the real world, it was refreshing to see him taken seriously and given an honest representation in the society we live in. This film super punches, then uses heat vision to melt nine (9) blocks into oblivion.

Man of Steel—9/10 Busted Blocks

Oz, Great, But Not So Powerful

  Dazzling Effects Help Make Oz The Great And Powerful A Wholesome Return To A Place Of Unhindered Imagination

ON CONTINUITY

ARTH VADER (AV): this rather odd, and potentially disastrous prequel to The Wizard of Oz, one of history's most beloved films, is an interesting attempt to tell the story of how the the great and powerful wizard came to be loved...and feared...by everyone in this magically enchanted realm. The visual effects reign supreme in this film, Ponty. The oddly enchanting Black and White film treatment that starts the movie is an excellent way to bridge the time and visual effects gap. As for the movie keeping in line as a prequel, well, it was a commendable effort but to me, there is little that can truly be done to bridge an 80-year generational gap that would work.

THE PONTIFICATOR (TP): I have never read any of the books, so the only reference I have for continuity is the 1939 movie...and Disney was unable to use many specific elements of that film since it’s owned by Warner Brothers. Still, it made a terrific prequel to that film Vader, despite having no association with it. Makes no sense, really, but again, the film is my only reference with the subject matter.

CASTING, DIRECTING AND ACTING

AV: As the Hollywood rumor-mill goes, I understand that Robert Downey Jr., was originally slated for the role of the Wizard over James Franco. Honestly, that would have made this a complete film. And I dare say, probably better. That said, Director Sam Raimi has assembled an all-star line-up to bring Oz back to life. Mila Kunis and Rachel Weisz as the wicked witch sisters and Michelle Williams as the angelic Glenda. And SCRUBS TV comedy titan, Zack Braff is a perfect assistant and voice-over companion. The (ethnically) diverse nature of the citizens of Oz makes for a refreshingly new look to this stunningly rich world.

TP: Kudos on the steady direction of this film that remained engaging always and moved right along. The casting was also well done. James Franco was a commanding screen presence, really selling Oscar Diggs (Oz) as a flawed man reluctantly willing to step up to greatness, by simply being good. Rachel Weisz (Evanora) does a great job of conveying such a dangerous and veiled evil, subtle in her performance, yet profound in her affect. Michelle Williams (Glinda) seems to channel the original performance of the character, but with a hint of realism as she often reminds Oz of his shortcomings, while accenting his true potential. Mila Kunis (Theodora) is the most tragic character in the film...and she does an excellent job of conveying a character both naive and profound in her inability to come to terms with her own feelings.

SPECIAL EFFECTS

AV: As of the writing of this post, this movie is still in theaters and if at all possible, I strongly suggest seeing this film in 3D. As my partner in crime knows, I am usually not an advocate for 3D movies, but this film has dimensionality in its DNA. The colors and overall vision of the new Oz is breathtaking. No words can relay the visual assault on the senses this movie delivers but it is impressive. And wait until you see the small porcelain doll-girl; best visual character of the year. As cliché as it sounds, it needs to be seen to be believed. Thoughts, Pontificator?

TP: In one word Vader...awesome. The visuals of this film are truly bright and inspiring, just as the dark moments are truly ominous. Kudos to the special effects department that brought a girl made of china to life, and made a talking winged monkey a viable character. The landscapes really bring the Land of Oz to life. The powers of the characters and the costume design were absolutely excellent and made this PG film something that everyone of all ages could enjoy. I usually always advocate seeing a film in 3D, as this medium keeps getting better, but if you  Vader, are advocating the same, that REALLY does say something!

TAKING A DEEPER LOOK

AV: Sadly, this section, at least for me, is going to be light. This movie was ambitious, visually over the top and even fun, but that's where it ends. Upon closer inspection, it is hard to take Franco's Wizard to heart. He's somewhat despicable and Franco comes off disingenuous. The flying baboons are far beyond scary and Mila Kunis' witch is plastic and one-dimensional. And worst of all, the implied musical number is so offensively bad, it made me noticeably ill. The finale is underwhelming and the "message" is a stew of Hollywood clichés. 

TP: I was enthralled with the personal struggles of all the characters. Oz, a flawed, womanizing man, wishing to be a great man...on par with Thomas Edison in the annals of history, but instead thrust into the Land of Oz and given the opportunity to be good man. In doing so, he becomes the greatest man the land has ever known. Theodora’s personal struggle is just as profound, although her life journey is not nearly as optimistic. Not having been exposed to the simplest act of dancing, the very human reaction of Oz to her leaves her scarred in a way she is unprepared to handle...and that her sister Evanora, takes full advantage of. Even the China Girl and Zach Braff’s portrayal of the winged monkey Frank, have deep issues to overcome, both looking for family and a friend respectively. In the end (and this is where it really all comes together as a connection to the first film) Oz rewards all those that were pivotal in freeing Emerald City, giving each very thoughtful gifts ala the first film. Although it will be many years before Dorothy’s arrival, the die is cast for the events that take place in the beginning of the 1939 classic.

ON SEQUELS

AV: To be brutally honest, this movie was an ill-advised trist and something that should NEVER have gotten off the ground without at least another year in development. To be fair, Sam Raimi is one of those directors that could make a follow-up matter. With that, though I would personally not advise it, a sequel would prove interesting... 

TP: I’ve heard this was the first of a trilogy. If so, I’m very excited about the next two films and hope they are just as engaging and entertaining as this one was.

RATE IT!

ARTH VADER Rates Oz the Great and Powerful: In the end, this movie was light-(or empty?) headed fun. A star-studded cast that couldn't quite deliver the knockout blow, despite the cast's best efforts and brilliant visual effects. Stupendously visual, OTGAP (aren't acronyms fun?!) whisks away six busted blocks, sent aloft on a tornado of brightly colored mediocrity. How say you, old friend?

THE PONTIFICATOR Oz the Great and Powerful: An entertaining film like this that can be enjoyed by everyone is a rare thing. The story is light, but profound. The characters are simple, yet complex. The visuals are magical and tap into our childhood imaginations. This film easily sweeps up and delivers seven (7) busted blocks on top of the wicked witch.

Oz the Great And Powerful 6.5/10 Busted Blocks: